San Francisco State University
Philosophy of Religion 500
Doctor Epstein
December 13, 2000 (Revised March 10, 2002)

INTRODUCTION

This paper is intended to supply for some of the many
deficiencies which I believe are present in the article in the
Philosophy 500-1 Course Reader entitled, "The Sin of
Idolatry," by Theodore Roszak (see, CR 130-145). In my
initial discussion of this reading in the class I indicated eight points
which were not adequately covered by the author of the article as it
relates to the Catholic tradition and its views concerning the use of
icons. To cover all of my original eight points would require a
paper the magnitude of which would far exceed the present assignment.
Thus, I have chosen to limit myself to three of what in my opinion
are the most important points:

(1) the Catholic theology of Icons, and its connection
to the theology of the Incarnation of God;

(2) the distinction between absolute and relative
worship; and

(3) the Eucharistic mystery, which Theodore Roszak
seems to be unable to fully grasp.

It is my intention, in the first part of this paper,
to fill in some of the gaps in the article as it relates to the Catholic
tradition and its understanding of icons as participated manifestations
of the divine. This view in many ways mirrors the position that
the article indicates is held in the animistic religions of the ancient
and modern world. To do this I will examine the classical position
of the Church as it was taught by her greatest theologian of icons St.
John of Damascus, with a brief mention of the theology of Icons as it
was formulated by St. Theodore Studite, a monk of the 9th century.
In the second part of the paper I will highlight the Catholic
distinction between absolute and relative worship, which is not only a
Catholic concept, but also a fundamentally Jewish idea. Finally, I
will briefly explain the necessary distinction that must be made between
icons and the Eucharist.

Before I begin the body of the paper I feel it is
necessary to I emphasize that I am not in disagreement with the author
of the article as far as it concerns his view that modern Western
culture lacks a sacramental understanding of nature. Where I differ with
him is in the identification of the ultimate cause of this failing
within Western culture. The secularized currents of thought that effect
modern culture can be found mainly in the 16th century European
Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation, and both of these movements
in my estimation are responsible for the desacralization of nature and
time. This secularized attitude elevated man to a level of dominion over
creation that was contrary to the view held by the Church for the first
1,500 years of her existence.

THE INCARNATION AND THE USE OF ICONS AS A PARTICIPATED REALITY

In this part of the paper, as I indicated above, I
will first examine the positive aspects of the Iconic theology of St.
John of Damascus, and after that I will briefly summarize the teaching
of St. Theodore Studite. I have chosen to concentrate on St.
John's writings because he is representative of the fully developed
Catholic theology of Icons. I will also attempt to highlight the
Incarnational elements within St. John's theological system; since,
ultimately it is the mystery of the Incarnation which enables him to
justify the use of images in the Church's liturgical life. I will
emphasize this Incarnational idea because in my view it is the most
important part of his work, and in this way he helped to lay a solid
foundation for the Church's theology of Images for centuries to come.

After looking at his positive theological achievements
I will then briefly explain some of the Christological problems inherent
in the Iconoclastic position. I will also examine St. John's views
concerning the Old Testament prohibition on the use of images and how he
shows that the Church's use of images does not contradict the Mosaic
legislation. It is important to note that Judaism never prohibited
in an absolute way the use of images and symbols in its worship of God,
this fact of course is contrary to what Theodore Roszak states in his
article, but anyone who reads the portions of the book of Exodus
concerning the construction of the Temple can quite readily see that the
earthly tabernacle was designed to be an image, an icon, of its heavenly
prototype.

In the opening portion of his first apology St. John
uses an argument from authority in his defense against the attacks of
the Iconoclasts, and thus defends the Church's traditional use of images
in her liturgical life and piety. So the first weapon in St.
John's arsenal is the perennial "teaching of the Church, through
which salvation is planted in us, as both foundation and pillar"
[St. John, 14]. He then explains how terrible it would be to
suppose that the Church could fall into error and thus commit the sin of
idolatry, for as he puts it, "if she declines one iota from
perfection, it would be a blot on her unblemished face, destroying by
its ugliness the beauty of the whole" [St. John, 14]. This
argument is a very powerful one, from a theological viewpoint, and what
he is asserting is the infallibility of the Church in determining how
the faith should be practiced; while at the same time he is asserting
that the Church is the guardian of orthodoxy and that she cannot abandon
the ancient tradition which sanctions the use of icons because she is
ultimately guided in her practice of the faith by the Holy Spirit.

After putting forward a defense based on authority St.
John next expresses his own revulsion toward idolatry, and then he
refers back to the Old Testament prohibitions against images.
Idolatry is not founded upon the idea of ascribing a participated
connection between an icon and God, but is based on worshiping something
other than God, as if it were God, even if it is done only in a
participated manner. In the Old Testament period itself, the
Temple was the abode of God, and was thus itself honored, much as the
Wailing Wall is honored to this day. The honor historically given
to the Temple and presently given to the Wailing Wall is not idolatry,
because each of them in some sense participates in the divine majesty,
because the Temple was the abode of the Shekinah, the presence and glory
of God on earth.

St. John then does something quite interesting, he
states that the Old Testament prohibitions were instituted by God
because of the Jews "proneness to idolatry" [St. John, 18],
but in the dispensation of the New Testament inaugurated by the
Incarnation of God the Son, these laws are not applicable in exactly the
same way as they had been before. It is here that he begins to
develop a doctrine of icons based on the mystery of the Incarnation.

In the Old Testament period, God forbids "the
making of images because of idolatry, and [because] it is impossible to
make an image of the immeasurable, uncircumscribed, invisible God"
[St. John, 17]. He then asks, "How can the invisible be depicted?
How does one picture the inconceivable? How can one draw what is
limitless, immeasurable, infinite? How can a form be given to the
formless? How does one paint the bodiless? How can you describe
what is a mystery?" [St. John, 18]. All these questions
present obstacles to the artistic depiction of God in the Old Testament,
but it is through the Incarnation that a change in the ability to
produce an image (eikon) of God is achieved. As St. John says, "It
is obvious that when you contemplate God becoming man, then you can
depict Him clothed in human form. When the invisible One becomes visible
to flesh, you may then draw His likeness" [St. John, 18]. As
a consequence of God's self-emptying in the Incarnation, it becomes
possible to iconically depict God in the flesh, and so one can make
images of Him at the various stages of His earthly life: His birth, His
miracles, and His death, can all be artistically rendered.

In his theology St. John recognizes a unity of
relation between an icon and its prototype, for "an image is of
like character with its prototype, but with a certain difference.
It is not like its archetype in every way" [St. John, 19].
As St. Theodore Studite puts it, "The artificial image is the
same as its archetype in likeness, but different in essence" [St.
Theodore, 100]. The icon and its prototype are identical in a
relational sense (i.e., in likeness and name), but they are distinct at
the level of essence. It is because of this relational connection
that one can offer veneration to an icon, and the honor thus given to
the image passes immediately to its prototype in heaven. St.
Theodore's theology is very compelling, in that he uses the Church's
Trinitarian theology; in which there is a distinction of relation among
the three persons and a unity of essence, but when he applies these
concepts to icons he simply reverses the order, and as I said above he
explains that icons are distinct in essence from their prototype, and
yet they are one in relation. In reading St. Theodore's writings
on icons it is quite evident that he is heavily indebted to his
theological predecessor from Damascus.

The best summary of St. John's thinking concerning the
implications of the Incarnation in making it possible for man to depict
God, can be found in paragraph 16 of his first apology where he states
that, "In former times God, who is without form or body, could
never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh
conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see" [St.
John, 23], and this is not a form of idolatry because, "I do not
worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my
sake, who willed to take His abode in matter; who worked out my
salvation through matter" [St. John, 23]. This second
quotation is especially instructive in that St. John is applying
sacramental theology to the use of icons. In the sacraments God
uses material elements in order to convey grace to the members of the
Body of Christ, thus deifying man by raising him through the sacramental
economy to a participation in the Godhead.

Thus for St. John, icons, which are themselves
sacramental in nature, bring mankind into contact with that which is
signified by the image in such a way that man himself is truly
associated with the archetype through the medium of the material object
which manifests it. This is true because an icon participates in
the reality of its prototype, as Fr. Louis Bouyer pointed out,

"An eikon is not an external image, foreign to
its model, made from without and therefore without life in itself.
An eikon is the living image of the model through which the
model is present, through which it imposes itself on the material
which is to receive it" [Bouyer, 88].

It is in this sense that St. John explains how the
veneration of images must be understood if one is to remain orthodox in
faith and practice. He basically teaches that in venerating an
image of Christ, or of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the saints, the honor
given to the image passes on to its prototype in Heaven; and in support
of this view he quotes St. Basil the Great (circa 330-369 AD) who said,
"‘the honor given to the image is transferred to its
prototype'" [St. John, 29]. By quoting St. Basil he shows the logic
of his position, while he simultaneously proves its antiquity in
opposition to the innovations of the Iconoclasts.

After showing the antiquity and orthodoxy of his
position, he moves on to show that the Iconoclasts were in some sense
denying the consequences of the Incarnation, and in doing this they were
unwittingly falling into a form of the Docetic heresy, a heresy which
denied the reality of the Incarnation and which said that Christ only
appeared to have become man. Because the Iconoclasts denied the
possibility of depicting God the Word made flesh, they were in a sense
denying the fact of the Incarnation. Another consequence of their
denial was that they tended fall into the heresy of Monophysitism, this
heresy held that the reality of the human nature of Christ was absorbed
by the divine nature, so that the humanity of Christ actually ceased to
exist.

Because the Iconoclasts insisted so strongly on the
idea that man could not depict Christ artistically, they were ultimately
failing to recognize that Christ is one divine person in two natures.
The theological position held by the Iconoclasts led them into
various Christological heresies, which the veneration of icons as put
forward by St. John Damascene helped the Orthodox and Catholic Churches
to avoid. St. John's theology of Icons protects the full truth
concerning the Incarnation of the God-man, because he is able to
distinguish between what is proper too each of the natures in the one
person of Christ, while the Iconoclastic position cannot.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE
WORSHIP

Now I will examine how St. John defends his position
by looking at a couple of examples from his apology in which he
clarifies the relationship between the prohibitions of the Old Testament
against the making of images and the use of images by the Church. In the
ancient documentation section which follows his first apology he says
that ". . . the commandment not to make images was given to lead
the people away from idolatry, to which they were prone, but the serpent
lifted on high was an image of our Lord's sufferings. Listen to
what I say, for the making of images is no new invention, but is an
ancient practice known to the most holy and eminent of the fathers"
[St. John, 45]. Here St. John takes the Old Testament biblical
pericope about the bronze serpent, which God commanded that Moses make
in order to cure the people of the snake bites they had received because
of their unfaithfulness, and uses it to illustrate the fact that not all
images were forbidden under the Old Covenant.

He also mentions the fact that the Lord commanded
Moses to have images of the cherubim put on the Ark of the Covenant.
Neither the bronze serpent, nor the cherubim, both of which the Lord
commanded to be made are in any way idolatrous. Here is where it
is important to note St. John's theology of worship and the distinction
he makes between absolute worship (Latria) and relative worship (Proskenysis
or Dulia).

In the words of St. John, "Absolute worship is
[the] adoration, which we give to God alone" [St. John, 82]; while
relative worship is the veneration which we give to the Virgin and the
saints, "since they are truly gods, not by nature, but because they
partake of the divine nature" [St. John, 84], and this veneration
is given to them, "not because they deserve it on their own
account, but because they bear in themselves Him who is by nature
worshipful" [St. John, 85]. This is why the type of honor
given to the Theotokos (the Mother of God) and to the saints is not a
form of idolatry; instead, by honoring them one honors God who made them
holy. This distinction between absolute and relative worship is also a
Jewish idea, in that in Judaism one is required to honor one's parents,
and also to honor civil authorities, but this honor of veneration is a
distinct form of worship, differing in essence from the worship given to
God alone.

The subtlety of St. John's theology is quite
impressive, but it is still quite easy to see its relationship to the
ancient and modern animistic views of the nature of images and their
participated connection to the deity which they represent. The
distinction which exists between the Catholic view and the animistic
view mainly concerns the Catholic theological tradition’s more highly
formulated and technical way of expressing this reality, and its
emphasis on the mystery of the Incarnation of God; the two religious
systems (Catholic and animistic) are substantially in agreement as it
concerns the ability of an image to manifest the presence of its
prototype. But they differ with each other in one major point,
because the animistic religions honor what they do not know or
understand, as St. Paul pointed out in the New Testament when he
preached at the Aeropagus [Acts 17:22-28], while Catholicism honors the
true God who has revealed Himself in Christ Jesus. The Church has always
held that grace restores and perfects nature, it does not destroy it.

ICONS AND THE EUCHARIST

Next it is necessary to briefly correct a
misconception found in Theodore Roszak's article (see pages 136 and 137
of the Course Reader) as it concerns the nature of the Eucharistic
mystery. In this part of his article he connects the Eucharist to
the Church's theology of Icons, in doing this he shows that he has
failed to grasp the faith of the Church in this vital area, for as St.
Theodore Studite pointed out to the Iconoclastic heretics in the early
9th century, the Eucharist is Christ, it is not an icon of Him.
The Eucharistic species (i.e., the bread and wine) prior to their
consecration can be seen as icons of Christ [cf. Stone 1:171-175], but
after their consecration through the Eucharistic prayer in which the
words of Christ are repeated and the invocation to the Spirit is made,
the bread and wine are no longer icons of Christ; instead they are
substantially changed into the very body, blood, soul and divinity of
Christ.

In his First Refutation of the Iconoclasts, St.
Theodore explains the Iconoclastic position when he says,

"'We grant,' the heretics say, 'that Christ may
be represented, but only according to the holy words which we have
received from God Himself; for he said, Do this in remembrance of Me,
obviously implying that He cannot be represented otherwise than by
being remembered. Only this image is true and this act of depiction
sacred'" [St. Theodore, 29]

But St. Theodore shows why this view is in error when
he asks a rhetorical question in reference to the Eucharistic elements,
as he puts it in his treatise,

"Are they [i.e., the Eucharistic elements] an
image or the truth? If they are an image, what absurdity!
You go from blasphemy to blasphemy, like those who step into
some sort of mud, and in trying to get across fall with both feet into
something even more slippery" [St. Theodore, 30].

He goes on to explain the Church's view as it concerns
the Eucharist, when he says that,

". . . we confess that the faithful receive the
very Body and Blood of Christ, according to the voice of God
Himself--why do you talk nonsense as if the sacraments of the truth
were mere symbols?" [St. Theodore, 30].

The bread and wine prior to their consecration can be
seen as ‘symbols’ or ‘icons’ of Christ, but after they are
consecrated they are Christ Himself. St. Theodore Studite's point, which
clearly shows the deficiency in Theodore Roszak's article, is that the
Eucharist is Christ, it is not simply an icon of Christ, the latter view
is the heretical view of the Iconoclasts, and in various ways it is the
view held by the Protestant Reformers.

The Church Fathers clearly rejected the idea that the
sacraments were mere symbols, and this holds true of the Eucharist in
particular because by the words of Christ Himself the elements are
transformed. Even the eminent Protestant scholar Adolph Von
Harnack admitted this, and did so in spite of the fact that he
personally rejected the ancient sacramental theology of the Church, but
he clearly understood that for the Fathers, as he explained, "The
symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a
symbol," but more importantly he went on to say that, "What we
now-a-days understand by symbol is a thing which is not that which it
represents; at that time [i.e., the patristic age] symbol denoted a
thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies" [Harnack,
2:144].

Thus for the ancient Catholic Fathers a sacramental
sign contained what it signified. Clearly then, based on the words
of Christ at the Last Supper, the Eucharist is not simply a participated
reality in the way an icon is understood to be; instead, it is the very
person of Christ, who is substantially present under the appearances of
the bread and wine; and as a consequence of this truth, it follows that
absolute worship (Latria), the worship of adoration, can be given to the
Eucharist, and this is something that cannot be done with an icon.

CONCLUSION

With the clarifications I have put forward in my
paper, I feel that Theodore Roszak's chapter on idolatry is not only
improved but is more accurate theologically as well, though I still see
deficiencies in the way he speaks about other Christian doctrines within
this chapter; such things as, the fall of man, the distinction in
Catholic theology between the natural and the supernatural realms, the
Jewish origin of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the theology of remembrance
which is connected to the ancient view of the ritual re-presentation of
mythic events through liturgical rites, to name just a few.

If I had more time I would write in greater detail
about these elements as well and bring a bit more balance to his
treatment of Christianity in the article. But I would like to
reiterate what I said in the beginning of this paper; I do not want to
leave the false impression that I disagree with Theodore Roszak as far
as it concerns the loss of the sense of the sacramentality of nature in
the modern world, on that issue I agree with him wholeheartedly.